Reply With Quote
I dunno. Outside of Spursdom, Manu and Tony aren't given their due. And there isn't a glut in really good guards in the West.
I'm sure if the "big 3" were healthy...then this article would have a different ring to it.
I dunno. Outside of Spursdom, Manu and Tony aren't given their due. And there isn't a glut in really good guards in the West.
I look at plus/minus as a tool. It's pretty worthless by itself. But if you watch games, look at regular stats, look at splits and look at plus/minus, you can get a pretty good idea of what's happening. Plus/minus is imperfect but so is any other type of statistic. For example, you can't look at points per game or minutes per game or PER or anything else and get the whole story. But plus/minus, if used properly, has its value.
Well, first of all, if an NBA analyst says Roy should be MVP, they should have their media credentials revoked.
And while Roy is playing awesome now, he had a horrible stretch earlier in the year where he shot something like 28% for a long stretch of games. During that time, his plus/minus was the worst on the team. But he turned it around and now the Blazers are winning ... and Roy's plus/minus is one of the best on the team during the win streak.
If you want to look at Roy's plus/minus on a whole, it makes sense for it to be about even.
This also makes sense. Joe Johnson is a very good player but he's not a point guard. When the Hawks play him at point guard, not only does he tend to suck but the team on a whole sucks. It's been like that since he joined the Hawks. With AJ in the game, that moves Johnson to shooting guard where he's much more effective.
If you take out the time JJ spends at point, his plus/minus number looks a lot better. As it is, the Hawks are better with him in the game than they are with him out of the game -- even counting his disaster minutes at point guard.
Exactly. I never said plus/minus was the end-all, be-all. Nor did I say it was infallible. That's why you have to look at more than just the raw plus/minus number.
Not if you are a horrible defender. Just like a gunner who scores a lot of points but gives up even more points on the other end ... the same can be true with a point guard who gets a lot of assists.
Calderon, in particular, is a well below average defender. With him on the court, the Raptors give up 111 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, the Raptors give up 101 points per 100 possessions. That's a huge difference and that's why his plus/minus numbers have been poor all year. He was last in plus/minus when he was coming off the bench. He's last in plus/minus as a starter. Calderon's defense makes TJ Ford look like Gary Payton circa 1993.
And guess who is the best plus/minus wise for the Raptors when Calderon starts ... yep, the second and third string point guards (Dixon and Martin).
Pointing to offensive stats as "proof" that a player makes his team better is about as worthwhile as pointing to plus/minus alone as evidence.
Yeah, because I've obviously been saying to use plus/minus to determine the All-Star teams.
im tired of seeing 3 suns players in the ASG...
Why? They fit right in...same game plan as during the regular season.
I think this is the best chance we got to send our 3 big boyg there, I'd love to see Burce there either.
This truly shows your ignorance of the game. You may now remain silent forever...
He does it so he can piss people off, no one is that ignorant. LBJ is putting up historical numbers, and there is no big man better than Howard in the East. That is very easy to see.
this is all you needed to say. damn.
stop talking about it, probably coaches will select a 4th one
Pretty much what I've been saying. But, several times in this discussion, you've bottom lined your argument based solely on the +/- stat with respect to Jose Calderon.
Being in the discussion for MVP and being a front runner or the top choice are two different things. Amare Stoudemire and Chris Paul will be in the discussion as well but no way either will be or should be the MVP. That doesn't mean they or Brandon Roy can't be in the discussion.Well, first of all, if an NBA analyst says Roy should be MVP, they should have their media credentials revoked.
See, here is what I don't get. You can categorize and fraction Brandon Roy's +/- stat for your argument but not for Jose Calderon. As I mentioned earlier, Jose Calderon's +/- stat has taken a sharp dip since he's been the starter after TJ Ford went down. But, look who the Raptors have been playing. The last ten games, they've played Cleveland, Detroit, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, the Clippers, and Boston. And, on that seven game western conference road trip, they had 3 back-to-back sets. The whole Raptors team, especially the starters, took huge dips in their +/- stats as the team went 3-7 in the last 10. Now, in the last 10, Jose Calderon's +/- was -72. Well, he's also the only true point guard on the team and he's been logging heavy minutes so in these losses, he's in there most of the time. But, his overall +/- is only -31. That means his +/- before the last 10 games where they've had a crazy road trip and played six of the best teams in the entire league, he was actually a +41 for his +/- stat. Why not look at that way just as you sectionalized Brandon Roy's +/- stat?And while Roy is playing awesome now, he had a horrible stretch earlier in the year where he shot something like 28% for a long stretch of games. During that time, his plus/minus was the worst on the team. But he turned it around and now the Blazers are winning ... and Roy's plus/minus is one of the best on the team during the win streak.
If you want to look at Roy's plus/minus on a whole, it makes sense for it to be about even.
Don't know how to actually look at his +/- when Joe Johnson is a point guard versus a shooting guard without actually watching every single Atlanta Hawks game and do the +/- myself. So, I don't know how credible that argument is without the stats to back it up. My point still being the best player on the team doesn't necessarily have the best +/- stat and there are plenty of factors why that might be the case. And, thereby the +/- stat is not an accurate enough gauge to evaluate how good a player is.This also makes sense. Joe Johnson is a very good player but he's not a point guard. When the Hawks play him at point guard, not only does he tend to suck but the team on a whole sucks. It's been like that since he joined the Hawks. With AJ in the game, that moves Johnson to shooting guard where he's much more effective.
If you take out the time JJ spends at point, his plus/minus number looks a lot better. As it is, the Hawks are better with him in the game than they are with him out of the game -- even counting his disaster minutes at point guard.
But, several times in this discussion, you've bottomlined your evaluation of Jose Calderon as a bad player with only the +/- stat.Exactly. I never said plus/minus was the end-all, be-all. Nor did I say it was infallible. That's why you have to look at more than just the raw plus/minus number.
Lots of assists but extremely low turnovers. That's why I used assist/turnover ratio and not just assists per game. There's a difference. You know that. It shows Calderon is handling the ball A LOT, still compiling a great number of assists and not turning the ball over very much. A good point guard will have over a 2:1 assist/turnover ratio. Right now, Calderon is over 6:1. Do you realize how crazy that ratio is?Not if you are a horrible defender. Just like a gunner who scores a lot of points but gives up even more points on the other end ... the same can be true with a point guard who gets a lot of assists.
Don't disagree that he's a poor defender. Don't disagree that he gets beat on defense. Disagree that that fact and his +/- stat means he's a bad player. And, again, his last 10 games, he's been -72. His overall +/- stat is -31. So, before the last 10 games, his +/- was +41.Calderon, in particular, is a well below average defender. With him on the court, the Raptors give up 111 points per 100 possessions. With him off the court, the Raptors give up 101 points per 100 possessions. That's a huge difference and that's why his plus/minus numbers have been poor all year. He was last in plus/minus when he was coming off the bench. He's last in plus/minus as a starter. Calderon's defense makes TJ Ford look like Gary Payton circa 1993.
You said it yourself earlier in this thread something to the effect that +/- is not that good with a small sample. Martin and Dixon don't have a very large sample in terms of minutes played. Again, look at the compe ion the Raptors have played recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Darrick Martin's and Juan Dixon's +/- weren't affected by garbage minutes.And guess who is the best plus/minus wise for the Raptors when Calderon starts ... yep, the second and third string point guards (Dixon and Martin).
Assist to turnover ratio???? That has and always will be one of the best indicators of how good a job specifically a point guard makes his team better. It's not just ppg or apg. Assists versus turnovers is a great indicator of the amount of time a point guard actually handles the ball and still makes plays to help his teammates score.Pointing to offensive stats as "proof" that a player makes his team better is about as worthwhile as pointing to plus/minus alone as evidence.
The +/- stat doesn't reflect possessions when a point guard has nothing to do with scoring on offense or defense. It's based solely on scoring when a player is on the floor, even when it's not an individual player has nothing to do with the scoring. You could put Jessica Simpson at center for the Boston Celtics for 10 minutes every game and her +/- would be better than the majority of the league. It's a flawed stat and it's not much of an indicator of how to evaluate how good a player is.
I've written this a couple times already in this post, you've used the +/- as a bottomline stat several times in this discussion specifically to evaluate Jose Calderon as a player. And, you've specifically used his +/- stat as the primary if not sole reason why Calderon is not an all star, despite the fact that you want to generalize the +/- stat as not and end-all, be-all stat ... except for Calderon.Yeah, because I've obviously been saying to use plus/minus to determine the All-Star teams.
One other thing because I wanted to show how skewed the +/- stat can be and affected by different variables that don't truly reflect the value of a player:
Jose Calderon +/- stat
versus Boston and Phoenix (five games, four blowouts): -86
versus the rest of the league: +55
He doesn't piss me off..he just looks like an
Something is wrong with you. Contact your doctor ASAP.
Here is the status of the West's Center Position: Stoudemire is allowing all centers to have a happy field day and he can still be an AS starter on merit basis..Even though case can be made for Yao, Bynum and Kamman...
Marion over Antony is a joke. Marion is a good defender but he can not even create a shot for himself.
Bynum is better than stoudemire!.. and he doesnt wear diapers!
Where have I said that Calderon shouldn't be on the All-Star team simply due to his plus/minus? Go back and read my first post in this thread. I argued against Calderon's inclusion without mentioning plus/minus. I used plus/minus as a tool to backup my original claims, therefore it was never my "bottomline" argument or whatever you are trying to paint it as. My "bottomline" argument was my original statement ... which you even agreed upon.
You are the one that is saying that plus/minus is basically worthless when trying to judge a player. I'm pointing out that if used along with other means, it has it's place. I've never claimed plus/minus to be perfect -- in this thread or anywhere else. I've also never said Calderon shouldn't make the All-Star team because his plus/minus is weak.
Of course I know how great that assist to turnover ratio is. However, if you are a poor defender to the point that it offsets your offensive production, you have to take that into account. For some reason it's not clicking for you that point guards also play defense.
Hypothetically speaking, which was how this point began, a point guard could have the highest assist to turnover ration in NBA history but that could be offset by horrible defense. The same holds true for scoring, rebounding, steals or any other stat.
How many times do I have to say he's a good player?
Seriously, how many more times do I need to say Calderon is a very good player? Do I need to preface every Calderon comment with the fact that he's a good player?
Bottomline is Jose Calderon, who is a very good player, shouldn't be named to the All-Star team over players like Jason Kidd and Michael Redd because although he's a very good player, it's questionable whether he's in fact the best point guard on his team, whether his defense is All-Star level and whether his overall impact on a game is that of an All-Star. That said, Jose Calderon is a very good player, whether he's named to the All-Star team or not.
well derrick martin is 2nd in the list and is +60 almost
does that mean hes better than Jose
edit**
You're right about that. He prefers tampoons.
timvp,
You're right, after re-reading the thread, I mischaracterized what you wrote. You didn't say it several times. But, this one post does essentially bottom lines your point that Calderon doesn't deserve to be an all star because of the +/- stat. It was this only one time. I mistakenly thought you made that point more than once.
Nothing quite says "All-Star" like being last on your team in plus/minus. Good call Hollinger
And, if you re-read what I've posted, I didn't argue for Jose Calderon to be an all star. Once you brought up the +/- stat, I simply argued how irrelevant that stat was in evaluating how good a player is. You're right that you never said Calderon was a bad player. But, you did criticize his game by using the +/- stat. And, I simply argue against ever using the +/- stat in rating players, even if not used alone. I think it's an inaccurate indicator because it can be affected by different variables that don't necessarily have to deal with that individual player and his performance. It's affected by things you can't necessarily see by just looking at the stat sheet without looking deeper or watching the actual games.
For example, since I looked at quite a bit of Calderon's stats, one of his worst +/- games was a -27 effort against Boston. The Raps lost by 28, so -28 for the team. Chris Bosh missed the game. The +/- season total won't tell you that. No surprise the Celts blowout the Raps without Bosh starting? And no surprise the Celts starters crush the Raps starters without Bosh? In another poor +/- game against Phoenix, Calderon shot the ball well while the guy he guarded, Nash, struggled shooting the ball. But, the turning point in a still close game was when Chris Bosh got his 3rd foul and Sam Mitc subbed Bosh with Jason Kapono. The Suns quickly went on a 13-6 run to end the 3rd quarter, went up 20 and put the game out of reach. But, these are things you don't see just looking at the individual +/- stat and the team's overall +/- stat. Calderon's +/- took a serious hit by those two things, Bosh missing a game and a coaching subs ution. Those 2 things alone make up -34 of Calderon's overall -31 +/- stat.
There are other things that affect individual +/- stats like garbage minutes. Juan Dixon had a +8 in the final 3:19 of a blowout even though the game was decided and scrubs were playing for both teams. As far as I know, we can't take out the garbage time that affects the +/- stat to make the +/- stat a more true player evaluator. Similarly, Darrick Martin had a +20 game in a 16 point win against Dallas in a game where Devin Harris was out so Jason Terry started and Stackhouse and Brandon Bass went 1-for-13 from the field so the bench was horrible. Darrick Martin's performance didn't really warrant a +20 stat but because Dallas bench was so bad, his +/- was unbelievable.
You were right about Jose Calderon and I apologize for misquoting you or misrepresenting what I perceived you wrote. And, I agree he doesn't deserve to be an all star over players like Kidd or Redd.
But, I do still find the +/- stat worthless even if it's used along with other stats because it carries too many flaws to be an accurate enough player evaluator.
Last edited by JamStone; 01-09-2008 at 08:13 PM.
Alright, cool. It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems that we agree that Calderon hasn't yet earned an All-Star nod. However, this seems to be the point of contention:
I simply can't agree that plus/minus is a 100% worthless stat. I think when used correctly, it's actually highly valuable. In fact, the Spurs use plus/minus as a tool during individual games -- which is perhaps the most extreme use of plus/minus.
I do think that traditional statistics and scouting are more valuable than plus/minus, but I also think that plus/minus has its place.
Anyways, you made some good points. That's why I like Piston Fan
P.S.
That one and a half sentence plus emoticon you quoted was just some sarcasm to introduce my screen capture. I was trying to take a shot at Hollinger, not the very good point guard in question
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
